OSNews

I don't quite share your sentiment, and would thus like to hear how you came up to them being shady. By "them", I assume you mean psystar?

Since a lot in the filing was censored, and it's hard to make out what's what, what makes you think they're shady?

Yes. With their early phreaking and taking credit for inventing the GUI, how can one ever trust Apple.

...and that is exactly what this court case is here to find out.

Personally, I'm more interested in hearing the courts verdict than your own as you've made it perfectly clear in the past that your biases lye with Apple.

Why not challenge it before starting a business?



Provide evidence of my bias. I have stated that I would like to see generic PC's loaded with Mac OS X, I've talked about the fact that I would have bought a Thinkpad if Mac OS X could be loaded onto it and supported by Apple.

Then again, you seem to have a habit of running peoples name through the mud with little evidence to back up your accusations.

Edited 2009-08-18 00:15 UTC

Probably because they needed the financial backing of a business to have even the remotest chance against a company as affluent as Apple.

Probably because in their eyes, they weren't actually breaking any law to start with (and to be honest, I'm inclined to agree with them)

Probably because there isn't sufficient proof of loss to take Apple to court over the EULA thus the only way to argue their case was by creating a business model.


You've also always been one of the 1st to defend apple whenever they've been challenged - regardless of what apple did prior.

You've also always been one of the 1st to comment on how "poor" other OSs are compared to OS X.

Maybe I've taken your comments out of context, if I have then I appolagise. But the majorety of your posts that I've read have sounded like PR releases for Apple.


You're the only person I've ever made a comment about that could be interpreted as a direct personal attack!

I appretate I was probably a touch blunt with my previous comment (in hindsight I was), but please lets not turn this into a "bitch slap" contest.

Why not consult with some lawyers? why not find out whether the Apple EULA could be challenged before spending money setting up the venture? companies spend money all the time on making sure their products don't violate patents, conform to regulatory requirements and so forth - this would be yet another one of those cases.

Now, things might have been different if a group of lawyers had said, "yes, we've looked through the EULA and there is no legal framework to back up such a restriction - I'd suggest you challenge it". I know if I was an investor, before injecting funds into an organisation, I'd want to make sure that my money wasn't going to fall into a bottomless pit.



Where? I've come out against the rediculous App Store policy, I have talked about how Apple should move to a more software and gadgets based business model, I have also said that Apple's lack of oversight regarding third party suppliers in regards to the suicide of a Foxconn employee is unacceptable.

Is it the fact that I don't scream hatred Apple is some how interpreted by you as blind fanboy zealotry?



I compare it to Mac OS X because that is what I have the most experience with. I'm not going to compare something I have never used in a sizeable way before.



And within that apology you attack me again. You really can't help yourself.

Edited 2009-08-18 08:05 UTC

You're assuming that didn't happen.

Besides, I can't speek for the US specifically, but EULAs have already lost simular such court cases in the European countries.


That wasn't an attack - I was just explaining why I posted what I posted before.
I appreciate how the cold, sterile words of an internet forum often get read in an unnecessarily negative tone (I've been guilty of this on a number of occasions), but believe me when I say that I have bigger priorities than engaging in personal attacks on an IT news site.

I'd like to see Creative spend some money on getting a working XFI driver into the kernel or alsa projects.. I don't think they are spending money on Apple or Psystar either though.

(F'ing creative.. grr.. first board from them I've had issues setting up.. almost disapointing enough to make me return it and accept substandard audio for my gaming)

Not to be totally off topic though, osX is sexy so indaviduals spending money to get it is not odd. Psystar and Apple are also not directly related to Linux based platforms so I can't see either of them spending money on the underdog platform either. Psystar specifically is more a retail outfit that is getting some great press through the osX litigation even if the finaly outcome does not end up being in there favor. Maybe they'll get barred from selling osX without being bankrupt in the process and will then turn to more liberty oriented platforms.

Invalidation of EULA or eventual focus on free platforms; luckily, either one benefits the end user ultimately.

The point I was getting at is the fact that Pystar is more willing to spend money on defending their business selling computers pre-loaded with Mac (they knew before starting the business that this was going to happen - common sense would tell you that) than allocating those funds to create a business orientated around a Linux desktop distribution on specifically chosen and supported hardware.

I never said anything about Apple investing in Linux - I pointed the irony of Pystar company spending money on lawyers instead of spending on creating an easy to use Linux distribution, selectively chosen and supported hardware, which would have avoided the fiasco in the first place.

If it is any consolation; the systems they sell are of such poor quality, they're not even useful as a Windows machine either. If you want to try Mac on a non-Apple computer you're better off either selecting the components or purchasing a machine from Dell or Lenovo that comes with some support once the Mac OS X experiment fails.

There margins are most attractive hacking OS X.

I think the real point is why should Psystar be bullied out of building a business model around OS X when there's no legal precedence stating that they can't?

Incorrect, around 7-8 years ago there were a couple of guys selling PowerPC based motherboards on ebay which could install Mac OS X unmodified. I don't remember the details but there was some legal rangling and the two ceased selling them. That is one precedent.

Even before the move to Intel there were attempts at getting it to work on clones; the precedent set so far has been pretty simple. If you're a small group of people fiddling around with Mac OS X and installing it on a computer in the privacy of your own home, Apple will ignore you. If you try and turn it into a business model - Apple will go after you for it.

There is nothing stopping Pystar from selling an EFI based computer, using EFI based firmware so that everything in it is compatible with an Apple Mac, selling it to the end user with either Windows, Linux or no operating system, then leaving it up to the end user to install Mac OS X when they get home. That would have been the simplist way to get around it.

Got a link to back up that it was due to a legal ruling they ceased trading and not because Apple bankrupt them with a long drawn out legal battle?

Like I said, I didn't have the details of the case. I have a feeling it was one of those cases where lawyers chatted and they came to an arrangement. All I remember from the situation was the problem was resolved quickly - I'm sure if a lawyer wanted to make a name for himself, he would have done so (given how many lawyers are keen to do grand standing).

Regarding licensing linking hardware and software together like Apple does; many hardware companies do it with their firmware.

So basically it's not a legal precedence then as it wasn't a Judges ruling

[edit - cleared up my point]

Edited 2009-08-18 11:02 UTC

This is the smartest comment I've read about the Pystar case on OSnews. The rest of you need to invest in a spell-checker and cut back on the coffee.

Why? I could understand if they stopped selling or supporting their systems after the legal battle started, or if they just disappeared and took off, but neither of those have happened. Pystar has continued to operate, in the open, and have continued to increase their offerings and I believe have continued to support their customers that have purchased from them.



And what exactly is the "right" way of doing it? Start the legal battle *before* opening business? Apple would bury them so deep in paperwork they'd have toilet paper for the lifetime of every Pystar employee, and Mac OSX would probably be completely irrelevant by the time any outcome was decided. While the course they chose isn't perfect, it did force Apple to move forward in legal proceedings as Pystars systems continue to sell. They have also changed methods so they no longer have to alter the install disc to help reduce the legal grey shades.



Someone has to do it, and I think better them than me or you. Also, why would an independent vendor have any interest in investing solely in another company's product, only to enter into a niche market that already has established competitors in it, whom would also benefit from their investment? Pystar holds product lines across all three of the major operating systems, including OSX, Windows, and Linux, which is something (as far as I know) currently unique to them.

Edited 2009-08-18 01:41 UTC

IF Psystar indeed destroyed evidence. Apple is just accusing them - nothing more, nothing less.

True, and the accusing reminds me of Donald Rumsfield with the 'known unknowns' speech.

Actually, I wonder why they don't license OS X Server to companies like HP or Lenovo or Dell. Apple doesn't really seem all that interested in the corporate server market, and it certainly isn't one of their core businesses. I can understand maintaining the monopoly on their desktop OS, but why not let the companies that already have their foot in the data center door push their product there? They lose nothing, risk nothing, and they can let other companies open the data center market for their products.

Actually, this case isn't over the infamous EULA. It's funny that so many people think it is. This case is over the DMCA - Apple accuses Psystar of "bypassing" a security feature to get OSX running. That's a no-no under the DMCA. That's why Apple wants them to provide all the versions of the code they put on computers - to try to show that Psystar was working around Apple code meant to keep OSX from working on other computers.

Psystar's attempt to bring up the EULA has already been tossed out by the judge. Psystar will need some other way to beat Apple's charges - probably something along the lines of interoperability.